satish_hello
07-19 02:24 PM
Hi ,
Even i got this same message on 5/19/2008, please look at my all posting, we have been discussing in seperate thread.
It is Hard LUD.
Please update if you get any info.
Thanks
Even i got this same message on 5/19/2008, please look at my all posting, we have been discussing in seperate thread.
It is Hard LUD.
Please update if you get any info.
Thanks
wallpaper -demotivational-poster
virald
01-31 09:30 PM
Has anyone analyzed who would be an ideal president from our point of view? Does IV think any candidate is more pro-legal immigrant than the other?
pd_recapturing
11-01 07:42 PM
This news might not be directly related to our cause but its very much relevant. Here also, they can come with similar results saying that out of all the IT jobs in US, x % have been gone to immigrants where x > 50. Opponents of our cause may use this gainst us.
2011 youtube funny animals.
coolpal
03-27 12:33 PM
Hi,
I have posted a couple of times regarding my earlier situation in other threads, but I decided to create a new thread since I haven't seen a similar case before. Here's my situation:
I was working for company A (consulting firm) on h1B since Oct 2005 and also have an approved Labor and 140 from A. I have applied for 485 in Jul 2007, and have valid EADs and APs (and extensions), but I wanted to maintain h1b status, since I have only used 3 years so far and I am the primary applicant, and my wife gave up her approved labor and h1b to work on EAD she got as a secondary applicant to my 485... so I really wanted to stay on H1B for that "Just in case" situation... I know I am paranoid ;)
So I applied for h1 extension in June 2008 with company A, but it was pending forever... contacted USCIS once in Nov 2008, but nothing happened... I got suspicious of the company's record since I was told that comp-A was under review by USCIS for excessive h1 usage, so I decided to transfer my h1b to Company B in Dec 2008 and invoked AC21 (sent the letter)... my original h1b has expired by then and so did my I-94, but since my h1 extension was still pending, I was told it would be ok.
In jan, USCIS sent an RFE for my transfer case requesting for various things like all my W2s since I started my h1b, EVLs from my client and Vendor, contracts between Client, Vendor and my Employer (B) etc., we also included my Paystubs for the last 6+ months and also for all of 2006 etc., and responded to the RFE in Feb, and it was again pending till mid March, when USCIS sent a similar RFE for my original extension case to company A. I no longer work with them, so I expect them to revoke my h1 petition.. so just to be safe, I applied for premium processing for my h1 transfer on Mar 13th and I got a second RFE on 3/19, which we got this week. This time USCIS sent something like this...
What is the status of your original h1 extension? (I thought they would know ;)), and since your I-94 has expired, we might have to transfer your case for Consular processing.. if we decide to do so, what is your choice for the consulate?
My lawyer said, they'll respond to the RFE explaining the current status, and also try to explain that I was in status all the time and request for COS instead of Consular Processing, but she says we have to let them know of the consulate in case they decide to transfer it over... and recommends that I chose Chennai (since company B is registered as BEP at Chennai).. she also said, since I have a valid EAD, I can choose to work on EAD if they decide to transfer my case to CP... and when I am ready to travel, I can go to Chennai to get my visa stamped and come back in H1b.
Is it true that I could do something like that? I thought once I use EAD, there's no going back. Someone please shed some light on this.
I have come to US for Masters and have worked on CPT and OPT for about 1.5 years before I got onto H1B. I was always paid well more than the LCA wage, and am currently being paid more than my approved labor wage. I have no problem in proving my legal status here, but as you can understand, I am worried and paranoid to go for stamping in these difficult times.. I am afraid they might come up with some reason to deny my entry/visa like 'there are so many citizens without job' etc.,
Any productive feedback is highly appreciated...
pal :)
I have posted a couple of times regarding my earlier situation in other threads, but I decided to create a new thread since I haven't seen a similar case before. Here's my situation:
I was working for company A (consulting firm) on h1B since Oct 2005 and also have an approved Labor and 140 from A. I have applied for 485 in Jul 2007, and have valid EADs and APs (and extensions), but I wanted to maintain h1b status, since I have only used 3 years so far and I am the primary applicant, and my wife gave up her approved labor and h1b to work on EAD she got as a secondary applicant to my 485... so I really wanted to stay on H1B for that "Just in case" situation... I know I am paranoid ;)
So I applied for h1 extension in June 2008 with company A, but it was pending forever... contacted USCIS once in Nov 2008, but nothing happened... I got suspicious of the company's record since I was told that comp-A was under review by USCIS for excessive h1 usage, so I decided to transfer my h1b to Company B in Dec 2008 and invoked AC21 (sent the letter)... my original h1b has expired by then and so did my I-94, but since my h1 extension was still pending, I was told it would be ok.
In jan, USCIS sent an RFE for my transfer case requesting for various things like all my W2s since I started my h1b, EVLs from my client and Vendor, contracts between Client, Vendor and my Employer (B) etc., we also included my Paystubs for the last 6+ months and also for all of 2006 etc., and responded to the RFE in Feb, and it was again pending till mid March, when USCIS sent a similar RFE for my original extension case to company A. I no longer work with them, so I expect them to revoke my h1 petition.. so just to be safe, I applied for premium processing for my h1 transfer on Mar 13th and I got a second RFE on 3/19, which we got this week. This time USCIS sent something like this...
What is the status of your original h1 extension? (I thought they would know ;)), and since your I-94 has expired, we might have to transfer your case for Consular processing.. if we decide to do so, what is your choice for the consulate?
My lawyer said, they'll respond to the RFE explaining the current status, and also try to explain that I was in status all the time and request for COS instead of Consular Processing, but she says we have to let them know of the consulate in case they decide to transfer it over... and recommends that I chose Chennai (since company B is registered as BEP at Chennai).. she also said, since I have a valid EAD, I can choose to work on EAD if they decide to transfer my case to CP... and when I am ready to travel, I can go to Chennai to get my visa stamped and come back in H1b.
Is it true that I could do something like that? I thought once I use EAD, there's no going back. Someone please shed some light on this.
I have come to US for Masters and have worked on CPT and OPT for about 1.5 years before I got onto H1B. I was always paid well more than the LCA wage, and am currently being paid more than my approved labor wage. I have no problem in proving my legal status here, but as you can understand, I am worried and paranoid to go for stamping in these difficult times.. I am afraid they might come up with some reason to deny my entry/visa like 'there are so many citizens without job' etc.,
Any productive feedback is highly appreciated...
pal :)
more...
Winner
02-24 11:52 AM
Recently we are seeing lot of people with new id without completing profile they are able to start new thread. What if admin enforced new user to fill the personnel information and then only they can post on this web site. More importantly some key massages\important issues get berried in active forums due to above issue.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
I’m not sure about "pay to post" idea, but I’ve one more suggestion.
I see many offensive/ill-mannered posts/replies in the forums; this is bound to happen if we let members to be anonymous. I would suggest a verification process in which any new member should provide his phone # and state leader/volunteer can call the person and then grant them access then we can have a healthy debates and discussions.
Now I understand that this will put more burden on the volunteers and state leaders who are spending their personal time to help all of us. I can take care of this task for Texas.
zeta411
12-02 11:58 AM
Here is what I am going through.
On November 17th night I received the news that my father died. Since I did not have AP, I had submitted the AP applicatoin online that night and called the USCIS the next day morning. They bumped up the request to extreme emergency and said that some one will contact me. Since I didnt receive any call for a couple of hours I tried followup a couple of times with USCIS and no one was ready to help except for the standard statement that some one will contact me in 5 days. Then I went to the local office in Chicago, where they said that since the people who who work on AP have already left(it was 3 PM), they will give the AP the next day. I went the next day morninig but the front desk person called the Nebraska office and spoke to them for a while and said that the supervisor has my case infront of him and he will make a decision very soon and I was asked have some patience. It is December 2nd now and I am still waitng for their decision.
I have not seen my father in 5 years and couldnt see him for the last time because my stupidity in not applying for the AP in advance and the USICS's apathy.
Please take this as a lesson and have the AP applied ASAP.
On November 17th night I received the news that my father died. Since I did not have AP, I had submitted the AP applicatoin online that night and called the USCIS the next day morning. They bumped up the request to extreme emergency and said that some one will contact me. Since I didnt receive any call for a couple of hours I tried followup a couple of times with USCIS and no one was ready to help except for the standard statement that some one will contact me in 5 days. Then I went to the local office in Chicago, where they said that since the people who who work on AP have already left(it was 3 PM), they will give the AP the next day. I went the next day morninig but the front desk person called the Nebraska office and spoke to them for a while and said that the supervisor has my case infront of him and he will make a decision very soon and I was asked have some patience. It is December 2nd now and I am still waitng for their decision.
I have not seen my father in 5 years and couldnt see him for the last time because my stupidity in not applying for the AP in advance and the USICS's apathy.
Please take this as a lesson and have the AP applied ASAP.
more...
jthomas
12-04 08:41 PM
If my wife is a US Green card holder and i am in H1B and if we both file for candian green card and move to canada for a week for stamping. Would it create a problem on US citizenship for my wife.
the third rule on the first thread.
the third rule on the first thread.
2010 25 Funny Motivational Posters
harrydr
06-29 06:32 PM
Hello,
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
Forum Gurus, i have a basic question. Currently i'm employed by a corporation and working full time for them under H1B. Now, i want to work for additional company as part time (approx. 20 hrs/week). This company cannot give me cash but only check. Is it possible to file additional H1B just for this company and start working for them under this new H1B?
My current status is: H1B approved with current company and I-140 approved.
Also, if the answer to my question above is yes, then could this affect my current H1B and approved I-140 in any ways. Thanks in advance.
more...
texcan
03-02 12:02 AM
Hi,
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
There is no hard and fast rule on number of days allowed for transfer after layoff, generally as long as you have pay stubs for last 1 /2 months there are no problems.
Now since you have already applied for transfer, it makes more sense to wait for result/approval.
you family's h4 status is tied with your h1 status.
IMO since you have now applied for transfer, you are not out of status. So nothing else to do other than wait for USCIS response.
HTH and sorry to hear about layoff. Hope it will work out for you.
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
There is no hard and fast rule on number of days allowed for transfer after layoff, generally as long as you have pay stubs for last 1 /2 months there are no problems.
Now since you have already applied for transfer, it makes more sense to wait for result/approval.
you family's h4 status is tied with your h1 status.
IMO since you have now applied for transfer, you are not out of status. So nothing else to do other than wait for USCIS response.
HTH and sorry to hear about layoff. Hope it will work out for you.
hair Cute and funny animal cat dog
Green.Tech
04-17 12:19 PM
My wife (going to use AP), My little son (US citizen) & my mother-in-law (Visitor Visa) are coming back to Dallas from India on Monday. My mother-in-law left USA in November 2008 and coming back again now. Would it be safe to send all three of them to the same counter at the POE? or would it be safe to send them to 2 separate counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
more...
pappu
07-30 09:41 AM
obviously,
Thanks for your comment. The aim was not to create any rift. But to express disappointment when such arguments have taken place between members. I have deleted the post to avoid any futher discussion. We need to focus. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks for your comment. The aim was not to create any rift. But to express disappointment when such arguments have taken place between members. I have deleted the post to avoid any futher discussion. We need to focus. Thanks for pointing it out.
hot motivational posters funny.
justAnotherFile
07-11 09:01 PM
That was a very good inquisition in your letter GCBy3000. Thanks for your effort to send it to David Obey (is he a journalist btw).
It appears that he has circulated this and it has somehow gotten into the political circle.
it is very good for us to increase visibility on this issue more on Capitol HIll.
It appears that he has circulated this and it has somehow gotten into the political circle.
it is very good for us to increase visibility on this issue more on Capitol HIll.
more...
house Funny Animal Pictures amp; Funny
leoindiano
08-28 02:56 PM
apume,
I am just asking why i lost my Donor Access? Not begging.
They opened a thread, "Good News on preadjudication"...I just wanted to take a look at it.
If you count how many people contributed more than me, you will not find more than 100 members. If top 100 contributers dont have access, who will have accesss to Donor Forums.... What is the freaking use? Why even have Donor Threads?
No Accountability results in No Credibility.
I am not against donating (have done it myself) but do you guys really think they are giving out GCs to the donors?
Or is someone giving out the secret to a quicker GC in the donor forum?
Or is there the address of the shop selling GCs?
Whatever appears in RED color - supposedly for donors - to me seems to be a marketing trick to attract more donation (sadly, they had to resort to this) - but remember that if there is a big news that is relevant to us - it will be flashed everywhere, even in Indian newspapers!
Don't go begging access to the donor forum or start salivating at the thought of accessing it... just seems kinda childish to me.
Don't gimme reds for this, it was only worth 0.02 - not enough for donation!
Chill, Peace!
I am just asking why i lost my Donor Access? Not begging.
They opened a thread, "Good News on preadjudication"...I just wanted to take a look at it.
If you count how many people contributed more than me, you will not find more than 100 members. If top 100 contributers dont have access, who will have accesss to Donor Forums.... What is the freaking use? Why even have Donor Threads?
No Accountability results in No Credibility.
I am not against donating (have done it myself) but do you guys really think they are giving out GCs to the donors?
Or is someone giving out the secret to a quicker GC in the donor forum?
Or is there the address of the shop selling GCs?
Whatever appears in RED color - supposedly for donors - to me seems to be a marketing trick to attract more donation (sadly, they had to resort to this) - but remember that if there is a big news that is relevant to us - it will be flashed everywhere, even in Indian newspapers!
Don't go begging access to the donor forum or start salivating at the thought of accessing it... just seems kinda childish to me.
Don't gimme reds for this, it was only worth 0.02 - not enough for donation!
Chill, Peace!
tattoo Motivastional Poster: Atheism
smuggymba
03-30 08:34 PM
To the Admins - I went in to update my PD on the profile, the latest date is oct 2009. Can you please update.
more...
pictures Labels: Funny Motivation
GCard_Dream
06-29 03:58 PM
It is a shady practice. The main reason an employer wouldn't give you a copy of a I-140 is that if you were to leave company A and company B sponsors you for GC, you can keep your old priority date. But that is only possible if you can furnish a copy of approved I-140 to INS. It is such a stupid practice on part of INS to request the petitioner to provide a copy of something (like I-140) that they themselves approved and should already have a record of. But I don't think anyone expects any better from INS anyway.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
I agree that it is a employer driven petition but the employer purposely holds the information back so that they have more control over the employees decision making ( specially if the employee is thinking about leaving the company).
This is not a shady practice. The employer had petitioned for a labor certification earlier to sponsor GC for an employee who might have left the company. Now they filled the position with you, so its perfectly alright to use the same petition for you.
As far as the documents are concerned, they are employer centric and they have no reason to give them to you. You will have nothing to do with those even if you get them. If the only purpose you want to solve is to know whether or not your labor and I40 were infact approved as your employer says, you should request your employer to show you a copy.
The copies are wothless to you if you leave the company anyways, before you get an EAD.
Don't heed the advise of people who ask you to find a better employer. Such people are only trying to get their own GCs faster, since there will be one less person with an earlier priority date.
dresses funny animal posters.
mbartosik
11-04 12:09 PM
It sounds like the UK is planning on increasing the points required for residence. I see nothing wrong with regulating the points required for residence based on needs of the country. Here it is done my H1B quota, but they forgot to change the EB GC quota too, and that's much of our aim here. In the UK it is done by points. Of course increasing the points will mean that average wage by those of non-British origin will go up. I'm quite sure that we on H1B have above average wage in US too.
In the UK things are further complicated because of migration within the EU to the UK both legal and illegal.
Anyway, this is interesting, but what's happening in the UK is of academic interest only. As far as I'm aware there is not a 12 year wait in the UK for an "indefinite leave to stay" stamp in passport (equiv of GC), and there is not a country quota.
If we don't work with IV, then Lou Dobbs will be saying that "immigrants are being paid more", and then in the next breath, "immigrants are under cutting US citizens". Hang on, I think that I've heard him say both of these things already!
That's why we need to act now, before we are kicked out for both earning more and under cutting!
In the UK things are further complicated because of migration within the EU to the UK both legal and illegal.
Anyway, this is interesting, but what's happening in the UK is of academic interest only. As far as I'm aware there is not a 12 year wait in the UK for an "indefinite leave to stay" stamp in passport (equiv of GC), and there is not a country quota.
If we don't work with IV, then Lou Dobbs will be saying that "immigrants are being paid more", and then in the next breath, "immigrants are under cutting US citizens". Hang on, I think that I've heard him say both of these things already!
That's why we need to act now, before we are kicked out for both earning more and under cutting!
more...
makeup funny pictures of animals.
rnanchal
02-05 06:27 PM
Received and emailed back
girlfriend funny pictures of animals with
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
hairstyles epesbet: funny quotes posters
abracadabra102
09-06 10:56 AM
USCIS receives around 7.5 million applications a year and mistakes happen. Cut them some slack here. Bad luck to OP. Contact USCIS and see what happens and please post here after your issue is resolved. Others will benefit from your experience.
pd052009
09-13 02:29 PM
1.Once the I-140 is approved, the PD is associated with you. If your new employer files new PERM and I-140, you can port your PD(no matter what your employer does with ur I-140).
2. If you port PD to same EB category, you won't save any time. Time saving mostly depend on EB category.
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
2. If you port PD to same EB category, you won't save any time. Time saving mostly depend on EB category.
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
GC9180
06-19 05:29 PM
Most medical centres/DRs are ripping off $$ on medical examination.
How to avoid/escape most of the cost..I just paid $200
First know about medical examination, as to whats done..
At any medical centre the basic cost should be around $185 - $200 (based on in/out of edison area)
- $185 Dr. Gita Dalal, U.S. Healthworks. 16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817 - (732) 248-0088
- $200 Dr. David Rizzo, Union Family Medicine. 2300 Vauxhall Road, Union, NJ 07093 - (908) 688-4424 **WALK-IN 9-6pm***
Basic should include
1) blood work to test HIV & ppr(forgot name)
Note #1) this blood work does not check for MMR, Vericella, Tetanus
Note #2) No blood can check if one needs vaccination for Tetanus. Only MMR (measles - mums - rebella) and Vericella can be checked thru blood work, if a person needs it or not. Again i repeat the blood work done for medical test does not check for MMR or Vericella
Note #3) Vericella is nothing but chickenpox vaccine. Do not get confused
Note #4) Good medical centres (who do not rip off, like the two clinics i noted) just ask for proof (vaccination record) for the above three vaccines.
Note #5) Some say vericella not need bcoz of age like 35+, but immigration needs it
2) Skin test (PPD) for TB. Once given revisit after 48-72 hrs. If result is +ve, do X-ray which is additional $50
3) Paper work in sealed envelope.
Note #1) ask for a copy and check if everything is checked, signed etc..., also fax/scan to lawyer so that he can check to if everything is correct. If any errors get it corrected from the medical center.
I felt these centers are ripping off
# Dr. Magdy Shenouda, Wellness Center
1706 Corlies Avenue, Second Floor, Neptune, NJ 07753 (732) 775-4138
$340.00 basic
# Dr. Seymour Wexler 999 Raritan Road, Clark, NJ 07066 (732) 381-3740
$325.00 basic
# Dr. Joseph Arno, Williamsburg Commons 10 Auer Court, East Brunswick, NJ 08816 (732) 390-8888
390.00 includ vac (forced to take vaccine)
also 1080 stelton road, edison,nj
HOW TO AVOID VACCINATION COST?
It depends on your insurance plan
I got Horizon BCBS of NJ - HMO. according to plan i can get vaccination from primary care physician - no charges. The process is Dr does blood work to check if one is immune to MMR and vericella. eg. if blood work says the person is immune to MMR not Vericella, then the Dr gives vaccine for vericella and not MMR. The note from Dr would say MMR not need and vericella was given. Regd Tetanus, Dr gave me the shot as i did not have record to prove it was given earlier ...nor blood work can prove if one needs it or not.
Blood work takes 2-3 days.
Note: you need not have vaccination record at time of medical examination. I told the above two mentioned clinics that i will bring it (vacition record/report) later from Dr...they agreed. Remember till you show them they are not going to give you your report.
I felt $185-$200 reasonable around edison,NJ bcoz thats the lowest rate i got for basic(blood work,skin/TB test,report) without vaccination + they agreed if you have vaccination record that would be sufficient.
So if you have plan which covers vaccination + a clinic which takes your vaccination proof/record...then your cost is just $200 ONLY or max $250 (if need XRAY for TB)
Hope the above helps...
regards
NOTE: correct me if i got anything WRONG...thanks
How to avoid/escape most of the cost..I just paid $200
First know about medical examination, as to whats done..
At any medical centre the basic cost should be around $185 - $200 (based on in/out of edison area)
- $185 Dr. Gita Dalal, U.S. Healthworks. 16 Ethel Road, Edison, NJ 08817 - (732) 248-0088
- $200 Dr. David Rizzo, Union Family Medicine. 2300 Vauxhall Road, Union, NJ 07093 - (908) 688-4424 **WALK-IN 9-6pm***
Basic should include
1) blood work to test HIV & ppr(forgot name)
Note #1) this blood work does not check for MMR, Vericella, Tetanus
Note #2) No blood can check if one needs vaccination for Tetanus. Only MMR (measles - mums - rebella) and Vericella can be checked thru blood work, if a person needs it or not. Again i repeat the blood work done for medical test does not check for MMR or Vericella
Note #3) Vericella is nothing but chickenpox vaccine. Do not get confused
Note #4) Good medical centres (who do not rip off, like the two clinics i noted) just ask for proof (vaccination record) for the above three vaccines.
Note #5) Some say vericella not need bcoz of age like 35+, but immigration needs it
2) Skin test (PPD) for TB. Once given revisit after 48-72 hrs. If result is +ve, do X-ray which is additional $50
3) Paper work in sealed envelope.
Note #1) ask for a copy and check if everything is checked, signed etc..., also fax/scan to lawyer so that he can check to if everything is correct. If any errors get it corrected from the medical center.
I felt these centers are ripping off
# Dr. Magdy Shenouda, Wellness Center
1706 Corlies Avenue, Second Floor, Neptune, NJ 07753 (732) 775-4138
$340.00 basic
# Dr. Seymour Wexler 999 Raritan Road, Clark, NJ 07066 (732) 381-3740
$325.00 basic
# Dr. Joseph Arno, Williamsburg Commons 10 Auer Court, East Brunswick, NJ 08816 (732) 390-8888
390.00 includ vac (forced to take vaccine)
also 1080 stelton road, edison,nj
HOW TO AVOID VACCINATION COST?
It depends on your insurance plan
I got Horizon BCBS of NJ - HMO. according to plan i can get vaccination from primary care physician - no charges. The process is Dr does blood work to check if one is immune to MMR and vericella. eg. if blood work says the person is immune to MMR not Vericella, then the Dr gives vaccine for vericella and not MMR. The note from Dr would say MMR not need and vericella was given. Regd Tetanus, Dr gave me the shot as i did not have record to prove it was given earlier ...nor blood work can prove if one needs it or not.
Blood work takes 2-3 days.
Note: you need not have vaccination record at time of medical examination. I told the above two mentioned clinics that i will bring it (vacition record/report) later from Dr...they agreed. Remember till you show them they are not going to give you your report.
I felt $185-$200 reasonable around edison,NJ bcoz thats the lowest rate i got for basic(blood work,skin/TB test,report) without vaccination + they agreed if you have vaccination record that would be sufficient.
So if you have plan which covers vaccination + a clinic which takes your vaccination proof/record...then your cost is just $200 ONLY or max $250 (if need XRAY for TB)
Hope the above helps...
regards
NOTE: correct me if i got anything WRONG...thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment